Bigfoot genome paper “conclusively proves” that Sasquatch is real

And it only took founding a new journal to get the results published.

It's not often you come across a scientific paper which notes that the information it covers is like something "seen on the television series Monster Quest." And you rarely read a paper which concludes, "The data conclusively proves that the Sasquatch exist as an extant hominin and are a direct maternal descendant of modern humans." But today, we have such a paper—and there's nothing usual about it, including the journal where it appears.

Back in December, our own Nate Anderson drove me to the bottle with a flurry of questions about cryptozoology. One of the big motivators of Nate's interest in sasquatch was a report that a Texas group had sequenced the creature's genome. Not surprisingly, the team behind this startling research had some trouble publishing a paper describing their results.

By all appearances, they've solved that problem... by establishing a brand new journal, called De Novo (I'm not kidding; they apparently bought an existing journal and renamed it). The journal's site appears to be a mix of clip art and some basic HTML. Though it claims to be "open access," the site actually charges $30 to see the bigfoot paper (although their press person was kind enough to provide Ars with a free copy). Payment requires a Google Wallet account.

Currently, the sasquatch genome report is all you can see. It's the only paper in Volume 1, Issue 1 of De Novo.

Running the data

Normally, publishers require genetic sequences to be submitted to a public database before a paper's publication, but there's a slight hitch here: the big public database requires a species identification, and sasquatch isn't officially a species. While the research team works on sorting out the species issues, it has provisionally settled on Homo sapiens cognatus. Some of the sequence data from the alleged bigfoot is available as downloadable supplements.

We're currently working with someone who has relevant genomics experience to do an analysis on those sequences, but much of the paper speaks for itself—and it says some very strange things. Figures in the paper show everything from iconic large footprints to old engravings of mythical ape-like creatures. There's even a photo of what seems to be a very shaggy carpet sleeping in the woods (with an embedded video, naturally).

The included clip of something shaggy in the woods.

Sasquatch Genome Project

The researchers (primarily a mix of forensics experts) have been collecting alleged bigfoot samples for years, accepting submissions from across North America. These include everything from stray hairs to clumps of fur with flesh attached to a pool of blood (collected after—wait for it—a sasquatch chewed on a pipe).

The team used fairly standard forensic techniques on these items: minimize contamination, gather the DNA of those who collected the samples, then ship everything out to contract facilities for analysis, with a large variety of tests being performed.

At this point, we get into some actual biology with enough details to analyze. And the details appear to point in the exact opposite direction of the authors' conclusions that bigfoot represents a recent hybridization between modern humans and an unknown species of primate.

To begin with, the mitochondrial DNA of the samples (when it can be isolated) clusters with that of modern humans. That isn't itself a problem if we assume that those doing the interbreeding were human females, but the DNA sequences come from a variety of different humans—16 in total. And most of these were "European or Middle Eastern in origin" with a few "African and American Indian haplotypes." Given the timing of the interbreeding, we should only be seeing Native American sequences here. The authors speculate that some humans may have walked across the ice through Greenland during the last glaciation, but there's absolutely no evidence for that. The best explanation here is contamination.

As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn't. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you'd expect when the reaction didn't amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn't. All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant.

The authors' description of the sequence suggests that it's human DNA interspersed with sequence from some other primate—hence the interbreeding idea. But the best way to analyze this would be to isolate the individual segments of non-human DNA and see what species those best align with. If the authors have done that, they don't say. They also don't mention how long the typical segment of non-human DNA is. Assuming interbreeding took place as the authors surmise, these segments should be quite long, since there hasn't been that much time to recombine. The fact that the authors don't mention this at all is pretty problematic.

It's impossible to say anything for certain until we can get the sequences analyzed; hopefully, we'll have an update on that before the week is out. At the moment, though, all indications suggest that the sasquatch hunters are working on a mix of human DNA intermingled with that of some other (or several other) mammals.

Ars Science Video >

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

Nearly 20 years ago, the Cassini-Huygens mission was launched and the spacecraft has spent the last 13 years orbiting Saturn. Cassini burned up in Saturn's atmosphere, and left an amazing legacy.

137 Reader Comments

In other news, my Journal of How that Bastard Todd Owes Me $100 just published its first study, titled "How That Bastard Todd Owes Me $100", which conclusively proves that that bastard Todd owes me $100.

Don't be fooled, sheeple! The RAND Corporation, in concert with the reverse vampires and David Icke's transdimensional blood-drinking shape changing space lizards, is trying to convince you that the Sasquatch is some kind of proto-human. The truth is that they are really the survivors of the ancient aliens that built the pyramids because angles and stuff.

All the people mocking the very idea of undiscovered large animals need a slap on the head.

It's like the Tasmanian Tiger thing, there are massive areas of inhospitable land that hasn't seen a human being in centuries, if ever, on that one small island... now just look at the American North West... There are massive tracts of land that could be hiding any number of things...

Does Bigfoot exist? Probably not. Could it (or something like it) exist? Yeah, maybe. Approach things with an open mind.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out...

All the people mocking the very idea of undiscovered large animals need a slap on the head.

It's like the Tasmanian Tiger thing, there are massive areas of inhospitable land that hasn't seen a human being in centuries, if ever, on that one small island... now just look at the American North West... There are massive tracts of land that could be hiding any number of things...

Does Bigfoot exist? Probably not. Could it (or something like it) exist? Yeah, maybe. Approach things with an open mind.

Sorry but, Are you suggesting there is some evidence of existing populations of tasmanian tigers on tasmania ? ... And these massive tracks of land that no human has seen for centuries ... Where are these? The only tiger in tasmania any one's had any evidence of lately is the Tasmanian Information on Geoscience and Exploration Resources, ... And they pride them selves on a pretty well explored and mapped tasmania Also as a resident of british columbia who spent a fair amount of time in the woods i challenge you to find a sq ft of it with out human traces and garbage, if its got animals to trap, trees to cut, or rocks to mine we've been there. ( Now adays its the mountain dew drinking extreme idiots - It used to be called wilderness because we weren't there, respect nature stay at home. )Yes it entirely likley that there are large animals yet to be discovered, i would say a certainty as animals are good at hiding from people, they keep popping up in central asia all the time, but surviving popuations of giant bipedal apes, dragons, or unicorns? far less likely.

All the people mocking the very idea of undiscovered large animals need a slap on the head.

It's like the Tasmanian Tiger thing, there are massive areas of inhospitable land that hasn't seen a human being in centuries, if ever, on that one small island... now just look at the American North West... There are massive tracts of land that could be hiding any number of things...

Does Bigfoot exist? Probably not. Could it (or something like it) exist? Yeah, maybe. Approach things with an open mind.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out...

Sigh. I know Carl Sagan said it -- but it's still not true. "Extraordinary claims" simply require "ordinary" evidence. Evidence that stands up to scrutiny deserves proper consideration, even if (especially if) it contradicts an established consensus.

Of course, such evidence happens to be distinctly lacking in this case -- which is precisely why the authors of this "scientific paper" resorted to the "extraordinary" measure of creating their own "scientific journal" in order to get published.

Sigh. I know Carl Sagan said it -- but it's still not true. "Extraordinary claims" simply require "ordinary" evidence. Evidence that stands up to scrutiny deserves proper consideration, even if (especially if) it contradicts an established consensus.

You are, of course, absolutely correct, in principal, in a perfectly rational world. The Sagan quote is perhaps overreaching, but I think it is a reasonable "push back" to psuedo-scientific rubbish. And... it's much more catchy. (The fact is, I didn't really think that through. Thank you for the correction, honestly!)

[EDIT: And, just to keep flogging this dead, dead, dead horse, isn't it also good form to try to disprove one's inductive hypothesis? To be precise, you never can actually prove it anyway. I really shouldn't post here after happy hour/s has/have started. That beer's not gonna drink itself -- that's a deductive argument, I think.]

1) Big Foot Exists: "Hey I've known it all along and you bullies are losers!"2) Big Foot Maybe Exists: "Hey I've been working hard to prove it but you guys are bullies!"3) Big Foot Doesn't Exist" "Hey I'm just a scientist like you doing science, quit bullying me!"

Ultimately, they get attention that leads to money and maybe people to think most real scientists are bullies (well the technical term is "critical").

Well, they can just lump it in with that evolution crap. I mean the team of "scientists" actually did DNA sequencing and other sciency stuff -- sounds suspiciously like anti-ID propaganda. Mr. Biggie Foot sharing a common ancestor with the pinnacle of creation (or as the result of a night of forbidden passion with a dirty smelly primate, tequila avec le ver was involved somehow I'm sure) makes baby Jesus cry.

Well, they can just lump it in with that evolution crap. I mean the team of "scientists" actually did DNA sequencing and other sciency stuff -- sounds suspiciously like anti-ID propaganda. Mr. Biggie Foot sharing a common ancestor with the pinnacle of creation (or as the result of a night of forbidden passion with a dirty smelly primate, tequila was involved somehow I'm sure) makes baby Jesus cry.

I like how you took a serious look at this honestly. The joking is probably warranted, but I really appreciate the serious look at it before any of that goes down. I know sasquatch can be a ridiculous topic, but it's unprofessional to look at a subject, ANY subject, and immediately scoff before you even take a serious look.

Once again, Ars earns my respect.

E: It's also useful in the fact that people who aren't familiar with scientific journals may not know what a lot here know; that the journal is laughable. To simply state that and make fun of it immediately might insult those who don't know. Tactful, that's all I'm saying.

"The data conclusively proves that the Sasquatch exist as an extant hominin and are a direct maternal descendant of modern humans."

Shouldn't that read "The data conclusively prove that the..." ? I thought "data" was plural. "Data set," for example, would be singular.

Data is plural? Which do you prefer: "very few data" or "very little data" to describe a small number of samples of something? If you said "little", you're treating "data" as a singular mass noun, like "milk", instead of as a plural count noun, like "apples". These prescriptivist rules that people come up with are really quite silly, and just show a lack of any real analysis of language.

I like how you took a serious look at this honestly. The joking is probably warranted, but I really appreciate the serious look at it before any of that goes down. I know sasquatch can be a ridiculous topic, but it's unprofessional to look at a subject, ANY subject, and immediately scoff before you even take a serious look.

Once again, Ars earns my respect.

Yes, seriously, I appreciate the tone Ars at least tried to maintain despite the "journal" and the "article" being such a ripe, low-haning fruit begging to be plucked. If this "research" had been even sorta peer reviewed and adjudicated, I have no doubt Ars would have championed it as such. Indeed I believe Ars would have granted it super-headline status!

That said, I am quite proud of my completely low-brow response to the Texas school board part of this thread.